undefined | Better HN

0 pointshga10y ago0 comments

And as I note in a sub-comment, that decision could have been ignored.

I mean, if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that the person behind the Hacker News login name "dragonwriter" could be killed without legal consequence by anyone, would it be constitutional?

Are you absolutely, positively, 100% sure you want no checks on the Federal courts besides impeachment? Perhaps read Livy's history on the period of the Decemvir's tyranny if you still say no.

0 comments

dragonwriter10y ago

> And as I note in a sub-comment, that decision could have been ignored.

Sure, any decision can be ignored. But then why even bother with jurisdiction stripping at all?

> I mean, if the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that the person behind the Hacker News login name "dragonwriter" could be killed without legal consequence by anyone, would it be constitutional?

How is that relevant?

> Are you absolutely, positively, 100% sure you want no checks on the Federal courts besides impeachment?

How is that relevant? Specifically, where have I argued in support of such a proposition? Its like you have a canned rant that you are posting without any relation to the post it is in response to.

hgaOP10y ago

Sure, any decision can be ignored. But then why even bother with jurisdiction stripping at all?

Because it's an explicitly enumerated provision in the Constitution?

How is [a Supreme Court decision proscribing me] relevant?

To try to make the stakes clear if your end all and be all of constitutionality is what the current set of Supremes decide?

Its like you have a canned rant that you are posting without any relation to the post it is in response to.

We're obviously talking past each other, so I'll stop.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse